Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Chemical Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compchemeng

Optimisation of the energy, water, and food nexus for food security
scenarios
Sarah Namany, Tareq Al-Ansari∗, Rajesh Govindan
Division of Sustainable Development, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University. Doha, Qatar

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The food security challenge has become a major concern for many countries and regions in the light of
Received 15 March 2019 changing climatic conditions, unpredictable political instabilities and increasing consumption of resources.
Revised 1 July 2019
To overcome global food insecurity and doing so whilst conserving natural resources, a holistic energy,
Accepted 2 July 2019
water, and food (EWF) Nexus approach is proposed, involving the integration of sub-systems represent-
Available online 4 July 2019
ing EWF resources. However, computational challenges associated with Nexus systems usually hinder the
Keywords: consideration of uncertainties governing the three sectors; therefore, deter the comprehensive modelling
Food security of such systems. This study suggests a novel methodology that utilises EWF Nexus thinking to influence
EWF Nexus decision-making within the food sector and considering uncertainty related to energy prices derived from
Multi-objective optimisation natural gas. It assesses technology alternatives for a domestic food production case in the State of Qatar
BECCS based on economic performance quantified using capital and operating costs, in addition to environmen-
Negative emissions
tal performance represented by Global Warming Potential (GWP). Three different scenarios are evaluated;
the first scenario consists of the current state of the local food sector responsible for delivering 22% of
the total country requirements from perishable food products; the second scenario is illustrated using an
enhanced food profile that can achieve a hypothetical 40% self-sufficiency level from the perishable food
demand; and the final scenario suggests a hypothetical EWF Nexus configuration comprised of renew-
able and non-renewable energy sources coupled with diverse water technologies responsible for securing
the desired self-sufficiency level. The final case is assessed using a multi-objective stochastic optimisa-
tion aimed at identifying the optimum energy and water mix that investigates the trade-off between the
cost and environmental burden of the EWF Nexus proposed, whilst hedging against natural gas prices
fluctuations. Findings of this research indicate that diversifying the energy and water mix of the Nexus
studied through introducing more than 70% of renewable energy technologies and utilising reverse os-
mosis reduces the environmental impact associated with these two sectors by 60% compared to current
technologies. However, the configuration requires additional investments due to the expensive cost of the
technologies deployed, such that $1 invested in operating the hypothetical configuration could yield to
0.019 kg of CO2eq per year. Despite its high cost, the final scenario exhibits a relatively short payback pe-
riod compared to the overall lifetime of the system, which deems it a sustainable alternative that can be
adopted by the food sector in the future.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Energy, water and food (EWF) resources and the sub-systems
that represent them constitute complex integrated systems which
are imperative for satisfying basic human requirements, such as
electric power for homes and businesses; clean water for con-
sumption; and the supply of nutritious food, to name a few,
guaranteeing economic growth and ensuring social prosperity
(Hussien et al., 2018). EWF resource sectors represent the pillars
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: talansari@hbku.edu.qa (T. Al-Ansari).
for all industrial activities responsible for producing goods and ser-
vices required for human survival and economic development. Cur-
rently, EWF resources are subjected to increasing pressures in the
light of increasing demands associated with demographic changes
and urbanisation and are also exposed to risks and uncertainties
associated with climate change and volatility of energy prices, such
as natural gas. Moreover, a disproportionate utilisation of resources
will engender an inevitable environmental degradation in which
the severe depletion of the natural capital is inevitable (Zhang
et al., 2017). As such, efficient resource management across three
sectors is required in order to provide a secure and continuous
provision of EWF resources whilst integrating potential vulnerabil-
ities (Namany et al., 2019). It is necessary for food security, which

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2019.106513
0098-1354/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513

Nomenclature p Pump
tse Treated sewage effluent
BECCS Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and storage st Stables
BIGCC Biomass Integrated Gasification Combined Cycles w Water source
CC Carbon Capture
Superscripts
CCGT Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
e Energy technologies excluding CCGT
EWF Energy-Water-Food
e∗ CCGT
FCM Fuzzy Cognitive Map
w Water technologies
FEM Finite Element Model
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GW Groundwater is cited as one of the most important challenges in the modern
GWP Global Warming Potential world. In fact, there is an incumbent need to ensure the sustain-
LCA Life Cycle Assessment able provision of food for a growing population. The global popu-
LCOE Levelized Cost of Electricity lation is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, which consequently
MILP Mixed Integer Linear Program implies an imminent increase in agricultural activities to satisfy
MSF Multi-stage flash the needs of future generations. In fact, cereal production should
OCGT Open Cycle Gas Turbine increase from 2.1 to 3 billion tons, along with a two-fold rise in
PV Photovoltaics meat production (FAO, 2009). The corresponding expansion of the
RO Reverse Osmosis global food system driven by primary agricultural activities and re-
TSE Treated Sewage Effluent source utilisation will in turn result in growing pressures on the
natural environment due to resource depletion and an increase in
Parameters GHG emissions.
c Unit cost of electricity, $/kWh unit cost of water EWF resources and their associated sub-systems are intrinsi-
$/m3 cally interdependent in what is considered as the EWF ‘Nexus’
CC Capital cost, $ (Hoff, 2011). Integration of resource modelling methodologies
CF Cashflow during the year, $ within an overarching EWF Nexus framework enables the iden-
E Energy, kWh tification of synergies and trade-offs between sub-systems (Al-
ef GWP factor of GHGs relative to CO2 GWP Ansari et al., 2015), in addition to developing potential cooperation
EI Global warming potential, kg of CO2eq or creating competition between them. The objective is to con-
G Emissions of GHGs, kg of CO2eq sider the multi-dimensional elements of resource systems, which
L Lift, m include the economy and the environment in order to inform
M Mass, kg decision-making. Quantification of the multi-sectoral interlinkages
OC Annual operating cost, $/year existing within EWF Nexus systems, such as flow of resources,
PP Payback period, years economic and environmental costs, is a challenging task involv-
QP Wuantity of food produced, Tons ing several computational complexities (Garcia and You, 2016). Ro-
QC Quantity of food available for consumption, Tons bust mathematical models such as multi-objective optimisation
SS Self-sufficiency level are intensively used in addressing resources systems such as en-
t Amount of groundwater, m3 /year ergy (Beykal et al., 2018). To date, many studies have developed
TC Total cost, $ methods to quantify the connections between the Nexus sectors,
UC Unrecovered cost at the beginning of the year, $ including analytical frameworks that have used a EWF Nexus ap-
Wmax Annual renewable water, m3 /year proach to develop guidelines and standardised tools for guid-
y Year before full recovery, years ing cross-sectoral decision-making. However, these tools remain
η Efficiency unable to capture holistically all interdependencies existing be-
tween the three Nexus systems, as most of the developed tech-
Continuous variables
niques address resource modelling from one-dimensional perspec-
x The percentage of contribution of energy and water
tive, either economic, social or environmental or from a single
technologies
resource perspective. This shortcoming in existing methods could
Random variable hinder the ability to address recent resource management issues
r Levelized cost of electricity of CGGT plant following which usually require a multi-dimensional analysis of the problem
a normal distribution (Albrecht et al., 2018). One way to overcome these challenges, is to
aggregate the complex resource system and modularise the EWF
Subscripts Nexus into a series of sub-systems representing EWF resources and
e Energy source to emphasise the interlinkages that exist between them.
e-f Energy for food Considering the nature of integrated resource management and
e-gw Energy used for groundwater pumping the challenges associated with EWF Nexus systems, a modularised
e-tse Energy used for treating water and holistic system analysis that emphasises the optimum inter-
e-w Energy for water actions between sectors within an environmental and economic
f Food source framework should be developed. In terms of the interlinkages be-
fer Fertilisers tween EWF resources subsystems, energy is required for the provi-
gw Groundwater sion and treatment of water, whether it is sourced through desali-
gh Greenhouses nation processes, groundwater extraction or through the treatment
is Irrigation systems and distribution of wastewater. Furthermore, energy carriers in the
j Different types of GHGs form of natural gas are required to drive the fertilisers industry for
ng Natural gas-based power plant (CCGT) feed and power generation and are essential to operate irrigation
systems used in food production. Water is used for cooling power
 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513
plants and for the cultivation of crops in addition to the raising of
livestock (Garcia and You, 2016). Biomass waste from the food sec-
tor (livestock waste) can be reused to generate syngas for power
generation (Al-Ansari et al., 2015; 2017). Modelling interlinkages
that exist between EWF Nexus, especially between the food and
energy resources can contribute towards an effective environmen-
tal emissions strategy, through the adoption negative emissions
technologies in the form of bio-energy with carbon capture and
storage (BECCS). BECCS has been featured heavily in global climate
agreements such as Paris climate agreement as a technology to re-
duce and control CO2 emissions (Larkin et al., 2018). In order to
identify synergies and trade-offs within EWF Nexus systems, effi-
cient modelling and quantification of interdependencies are impor-
tant in order to design resilient and robust Nexus systems.
The objective of this paper is to contribute further to the
conceptualisation of the EWF Nexus theory, and related analy-
sis through the development of a unique multi-dimensional EWF
Nexus methodology, which considers both the environment and
the economy within an optimisation framework. With an empha-
sis on the inter-linkages that exist between EWF resources, the
EWF Nexus tool presented in this study considers multiple tech-
nology options, which are configured together for food security
scenarios specific for a Qatar based case study. A key feature of
the EWF Nexus tool is the integration of the emerging negative
emission technology as an alternative eco-friendly energy source
while demonstrating its integration within the EWF Nexus. Power
generation from the biomass integrated gasification combined cy-
cle (BIGCC) driven by biomass as a feedstock is considered a near
carbon neutral process. Therefore, negative emissions occur upon
the integration of carbon capture with the BIGCC system forming
what is considered bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
Furthermore, the benefit of this technology is explored in this
study through investigating the potential reduction in environmen-
tal emissions by using the BECCS system. The methodology de-
veloped in this study can be adopted by policy makers to under-
take decisions considering both risk and uncertainty as related to
the EWF Nexus. The purpose of which is to ascertain the impact
of economic and environmental considerations have on determin-
ing optimum configurations. The functionality of the EWF Nexus
tool developed is demonstrated through a detailed analysis of re-
spective food security scenarios. As such, outcomes of this study
will serve as an important guide for decision makers, which will
present an opportunity for informed decision making considering
the need to balance environmental and economic objectives.
The remainder of this paper provides a review of the EWF
Nexus with a major focus on previous studies that have addressed
the issue of food security from a systems perspective that anal-
yse interlinkages between EWF resources using multi-objective op-
timisation as a modelling technique. It also introduces the current
state of Qatar’s food security as it forms the basis of the case study
analysed in this work. Section 3 provides a detailed explanation
of the methodology followed in this study, consisting of a quan-
titative analysis of two food security scenarios that deliver dif-
ferent food self-sufficiency levels using current technologies. This
is followed by a hypothetical scenario, which considers the po-
tential contribution of renewable and more efficient energy and
water sources. The scenario is introduced and formulated as a
multi-objective optimisation that hedges against the economic risk
induced by the stochasticity of natural gas prices. The three pro-
posed scenarios consider Qatar as a country that is uniquely striv-
ing towards enhancing its domestic self-sufficiency in food. As
such, outcomes of this study will serve as an important guide for
decision makers, which will present an opportunity for informed
decision making considering the need to balance environmental
and economic objectives while producing the desired amounts of
food products.
3
2. Food security
Food security was first defined at the World Food Summit in
1996 as the “state where people have physical, economic, and so-
cial access to healthy, sufficient, and safe food that satisfy their nu-
tritional body requirements in order to be productive and have a sane
lifestyle at all times” (FAO, 1996). Food systems, the enabling op-
erational bodies that can deliver food security objectives are com-
plex structures that are characterised by multiple interrelated tem-
poral and spatial features. Therefore, the analyses of such struc-
tures require a holistic approach, which considers various as eco-
nomic and environmental throughout the life cycle of all processes
within the system. According to Moragues-Faus et al. (2017), pre-
vious food security studies have focused on specific sub-systems
of the food sector with an emphasis on the outputs generated
by the systems. This problem has led to a failure in holistically
addressing the sector’s weaknesses that are related to the lack
of consideration for the interdependencies between the EWF re-
source sectors, the socio-economic inequality in the provision of
food and food system dynamics caused by uncertainties and risks.
To overcome these limitations, a case study was conducted by
Moragues-Faus et al. (2017) to identify deficits in food sector gov-
ernance through Delphi surveys. Findings affirmed that impar-
ity in accessing food, sectorial and geopolitical interdependencies,
weak institutional capacity, in addition to the differing definitions
of food security, are some of the major vulnerabilities deterring
food security. Considering, the multi-dimensional characteristic of
food systems, consisting of multiple stakeholders, diverging objec-
tives and decisions; the available literature related to food security
analysis is diverse, as different studies have addressed the chal-
lenge through multiple perspectives as illustrated in Fig. 1. The
following sub-sections provide insight into the different method-
ologies that have been used to address complex food sector
challenges.
2.1. Food security approaches
A portion of previous studies focused on the process level of
food delivery through the introduction of new techniques aim-
ing to enhance the performance of the food sector, particu-
larly in agriculture, while considering environmental impacts. Sá
et al. (2017) adopted a scenario analysis methodology to assess
the possible incentives for implementing Low-Carbon Agriculture
(LCA) best practices in South America’s agricultural systems. Re-
sults of this study demonstrated that adopting crop-livestock-
forestry-systems such as non-till farming, livestock intensification
and restoration of degraded fallow lands as part of LCA strategic
plans could reduce global emissions by 7.5% from land use between
2016 and 2020. Meanwhile, Kang et al. (2017) considered irrigation
as one of the influential pillars of agriculture in China. The study
aimed to achieve food security by enhancing water productivity,
which can be realised through reducing water loss in agriculture
whilst maintaining the desired food production level. To maintain
this balance, technologies such as partial root-zone irrigation in
addition to the regulation of deficit irrigation should be imple-
mented as they have demonstrated clear benefits to crop yields.
The authors have also considered water allocation through spatio-
temporal optimisation along with integrative sustainability analysis
for efficient water use.
Irani et al. (2017) conducted a study to improve food security in
Qatar through efficient waste management. The framework based
on a Fuzzy Cognitive Map (FCM) combined with policy graphic
modelling interface, referred to as PolicyCompass, aims at indi-
cating causalities existing between organisational behaviours and
practices in food supply chains in relation to waste. Outcomes of
the study demonstrated that factors such as bureaucracy levels,
4 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513

Fig. 1. Summary of the food security studies.

stakeholders’ consciousness related to the environmental burden
caused by food wastes, and regulations applied to food supplies
hinder food security in the State of Qatar. Fuss et al. (2015) ap-
proached crop yield differently through analysing the effect of
climatic fluctuations on crop yield instability and how the lat-
ter impacts realising food security targets. The authors developed
a stochastic model known as the Global Biosphere Management
Model (GLOBIOM) that integrates forestry, bio-energy, and agricul-
ture. Results of the model reveal a need to increase food produc-
tion to reach security; however, this augmentation leads to price
inflation, emissions, and disruption of biodiversity. Hence, the op-
timisation of irrigation systems and trade relaxation is required to
satisfy the food supply requirements. Jha and Tripathy (2018) ex-
plored a more detailed field in agriculture related to food grains.
The study focused on optimising process parameters i.e. mois-
ture, power level and air velocity of solar dryers used to extend
the shelf-life of grains. Furthermore, a 3-D Finite Element Model
(FEM) was modelled to forecast moisture levels of paddy while un-
dergoing solar drying. As energy generation is crucial within the
food sector, Jurasz and Ciapała (2018) investigated the potential of
coupling hydropower and photovoltaics with food systems for a
smoother energy generation. Incidentally, utilising water for energy
generation as an alternative to irrigation could trigger competition
between the energy and food sectors, which could impact the per-
formance of the two systems.
Mathematical modelling and optimisation have been utilised to
enhance the performance of food systems considering production,
operations, and supply chains. The EWF Nexus system is an area of
integrated resource modelling where multi-objective and stochastic
optimisation have demonstrated valuable results as they can han-
dle complexities of multi-scale nature related to Nexus problems
(Garcia and You, 2016; Gao and You, 2019).
 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513
Woldesellasse et al. (2018) utilised remote sensing imagery
to predict the crop yield for Alfalfa production in the State
of Qatar whilst considering the impact of drought. A neural
network-based model was developed and trained using histori-
cal data, namely meteorological (weather) and soil data to fore-
cast the crop water demand. The soil data was used for irriga-
tion planning using a Mixed Integer Linear Program (MILP) model,
which determines the optimal allocation of water to satisfy the
crop water demand for outdoor cultivation of alfalfa. Similarly,
Campana et al. (2018) adopted an EWF Nexus approach to study
the influence of drought on crop yield, energy requirements and
nutrients of the potato crop. The framework generates climatic
data using mesoscale models, which are used as an input for a
multi-criteria optimisation model designed to maximise the yield,
minimise nutrient requirement, in addition reducing energy and
water quantities needed for irrigation purposes. Integrating the
three EWF Nexus systems in one model, Namany et al. (2018) pro-
posed a model that determines the optimal energy and water
mix that minimises the cost and environmental burden of a food
production case in Qatar. The study particularly examined the
allocation of energy and water resources based on the influ-
ence of the stochasticity of natural gas prices and the competi-
tion within the energy generation sector represented by a game-
theoretic modelling framework called the Stackelberg competition
(Stackelberg, 2014).
Considering the nutritional value of food, Mortada et al.
(2018) suggested an optimisation framework to allocate resources
sustainably under dietary, agricultural, environmental, and socio-
economic constraints. The objective of the model is to identify the
optimal water and agriculture scenario, which follows nutritional
guidelines whilst accounting for food preferences. Considering en-
vironmental burdens, Gephart et al. (2016) studied the nutritional
value of available food as an indication of food security. The frame-
work developed generates the optimal diets that minimises a range
of environmental footprints i.e. water, carbon, nitrogen, and land
under nutritive value of food constraints. Conclusions of the study
demonstrated that diets with minimal footprint appear to be sim-
ilar for all environmental indicators. Focusing on enhancing the
crop yield, Berge et al. (2019) developed a framework that iden-
tifies the optimal nutrient intake for maize in order to reach in-
creased self-sufficiency levels in the future. Findings have revealed
that in order to enhance the yield, the response of the crop to the
nutrients added is more important that randomly intensifying nu-
trients intake. In fact, saturating crops with nutrients could drasti-
cally damage the yield and results in economic and environmental
losses.
Kravanja and Čuček (2013) proposed two multi-objective opti-
misation approaches to assess direct and indirect environmental
impacts of biogas supply chains using animal and organic waste.
The first model consists of an economic analysis that generates
sustainability metrics. In the second optimisation model, a set of
mixed integer non-linear programs were used to formulate multi-
criterion sustainable synthesis based on epsilon-constraint tech-
nique that generates Pareto sets. Garcia and You (2015) applied
a multi-objective optimisation concept to solve a bioconversion
network comprised of several technologies and compounds. The
framework aims to optimise environmental and economic perfor-
mance based on techno-economic aspects such as capital costs,
transportation costs, capacity of equipment used as well as process
and transportation emissions. Findings of the study illustrated that
environmentally friendly solutions reduce footprints, albeit entail
significant financial costs. Alternatively, cost effective options re-
sult in a wider range of technologies with greater capacities. Sim-
ilarly, Bernardi et al. (2012) assessed economic and environmental
performance of bioethanol supply chains through the formulation
of a multi-objective model aiming to minimise carbon and water
5
footprints, as well as enhance economic output. The model is for-
mulated as a MILP that can handle strategic and planning actions.
Wang et al. (2019) developed a more comprehensive approach in-
volving both MILP and agent-based modelling related to energy
and water resource planning and reuse. The framework is multi-
dimensional and inter-disciplinary involving optimisation of social,
economic and environmental decisions. The methodology devel-
oped is interactive and dynamic and can accommodate other sec-
tors.
Optimisation of processes within the food sector is fundamen-
tal for attaining food security, yet it is not sufficient to achieve
resilience, as food industry is not restricted to food production
only. In fact, storage, delivery, and provision of products to end-
users is crucial and should also be optimised to hedge against un-
certainties and risks such as supply disruptions associated with
this level of production. In this regard, Hasuike et al. (2014) sug-
gested an optimisation framework for a regional scale food sup-
ply chain that maximises the total revenue. The problem is sub-
jected to unpredictable crop demand and uncertain production
volume constraints. To account for these uncertainties, a multi-
period stochastic model was developed to generate the optimal
distributable quantities and area of cultivated land at varying time
slots. The problem was further simplified to a linear program,
which solves for the ordering quantity of a regional store using a
data-driven technique. Similarly, Mogale et al. (2018) proposed a
multi-objective, multi-period and multi-modal model to overcome
shortages in storage capacity of capacitated silos. The framework
developed is a solution for a location-allocation problem where
the objective is to minimise the total cost of the supply chain
network including the transportation lead-time for food grains.
García-Flores et al. (2015) highlighted the contribution of logistics
optimisation in achieving food security. The authors emphasised
the importance of mathematical models and optimisation frame-
works in orienting decision-making process in supply chain prob-
lems and scheduling as a specific case. The model developed in
this study aims to minimise transportation costs of a dairy agri-
business under vehicles capacity, resources accessibility and milk
supply, which serves as a strategic guide for optimal food distribu-
tion in urban areas. Rajakal et al. (2019) proposed a holistic frame-
work for strategic and logistic decision-making using mathematical
optimisation. The model developed aims at meeting the increas-
ing demands for agro-products, through optimising land usage and
transportation distance with an aim to reduce costs and environ-
mental burden.
In summary, existing literature that addresses the question of
food security is extensive. Many studies have addressed the issue
of the provision of food from a food security perspective allud-
ing to the availability, access, and utilisation of food products. This
is in addition to the consideration of diverse decision-making lev-
els ranging from process design through to governance. Evidently,
optimisation and mathematical tools have been widely utilised to
enhance the output of the food system and to inform decision-
making. In terms of food security, it is important to consider the
interdependency of EWF systems as independent resource evalu-
ation fails to capture risks and cascade failures in an event one
sector is disturbed. The EWF Nexus-based methodology developed
in this study addresses some of the challenges by integrating both
economic and environmental performance modelling and optimi-
sation, including the consideration for potential risks, within a
holistic framework. It proposes a multi-disciplinary approach that
combines economic and environmental analysis to partially ad-
dress food security challenges associated with food availability. The
methodology suggested in this study identifies the optimum utili-
sation of energy and water resources required for higher food self-
sufficiency levels. In this study, an increase to 40% from the cur-
rent 22%, in terms of the local production of perishable food is
6 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513

considered. The work presented in this paper achieves two objec- Table 1
CCGT power plants in Qatar, modified from GEO (2015).
tives; (1) advances the conceptual and analytical understanding of
the EWF Nexus, and (2) provides the necessary analysis to inform Power plant Capital cost (M$) Capacity (MW)
decisions pertaining to food security, which combines the utility of Messaid 2300 2007
energy and water technologies. The value of the methodology is Ras Laffan B 1464 1025
demonstrated using a case study focusing on the local production Ras Laffan C 3900 2730
in the state of Qatar.
The challenge in Qatar is to intensify domestic production as Table 2
part of a holistic food security narrative, and to do so within a sus- Water consumption and capital costs by source of water in
tainable development framework, which demonstrates economic 2012 (Secondary Water Use, 2012; Robinson, 2002).
benefits and consideration for the environment. As such, adopting Source Water used (Mm3 ) Capital Cost ($)
a EWF Nexus perspective for resource management and control of
Groundwater 239 235,830
environmental pollution can be utilised to evaluate food systems TSE 46 16,182,988
in the context of food security scenarios. Considering the need Total 285 16,418,818
to expand domestic production, the EWF Nexus model presented
in this work will perform a comparative analysis for current and
Table 3
hypothetical food security scenarios in Qatar, through the utilisa- Sources of data used in this study.
tion of various technology portfolios represented in three scenar-
Data Source
ios and illustrated by two food profiles: (1) Current level of self-
sufficiency in perishable food products of 22% (2) hypothetical level of Food Profile MDPS (2016)
self-sufficiency in perishable food products of 40%. The main purpose CCGT, CCGT+CC and PV costs Govindan et al. (2018)
Biomass costs EIA (2018)
of the methods developed in this study is to conduct a compar-
Environmental impact values (Al-Ansari et al., 2015, 2017)
ative analysis between the current state of food production that Water costs Darwish et al. (2015)
satisfies a very narrow portion of the total local demand, and two
hypothetical Nexus system alternatives that increase the level of
self-sufficiency. This comparison will provide insight into the fu-
Nexus charged with producing perishable food; and (2) environ-
ture of the food sector in Qatar if the hypothetical system eval-
mental performance which is assessed using the annual amount of
uated is implemented. In addition, this study is an expansion of
GWP generated from the proposed system. The formulated multi-
earlier EWF system models which are representative of integrated
objective optimisation problem accounts for variability in natural
EWF resource sectors as applied to the environmental analysis of
gas prices and is solved using a genetic algorithm (Goldberg, 1989).
food security scenarios (Al-Ansari et al., 2015, 2017). Furthermore,
The methodology followed in this study is illustrated in
the study introduces a novel mathematical model coupling multi-
Fig. 1a and is demonstrated for Qatar’s domestic food security
objective and stochastic optimisation, which identifies optimum
challenge.
energy, and water technologies that can achieve an enhanced self-
sufficiency level in food systems. The model enables the assess-
ment of the environmental burden and the economic performance 3.1. Data available
of the EWF Nexus studied whilst hedging against stochasticity in
gas prices, which represents an uncertainty that influences the be- The methodology proposed utilises two types of data: economic
haviour of EWF sectors. The objective of which is to identify the and environmental. Scenarios developed are formulated based on
optimum configuration that delivers the highest amount of food the EWF Nexus perspective; therefore, all data collected is re-
with the least cost and environmental burden. Furthermore, this lated to either energy, water, food or a combination of the three
study will integrate BECCS technology, which contributes towards systems. For both environmental and economic assessments, data
negative emissions within an economic and environmental optimi- was constructed based on information from literature along with
sation framework as part of the EWF Nexus tool. Moreover, the some local statistics. Capital costs of energy and water technolo-
EWF Nexus tool is built on foundational parametrised unit pro- gies were compiled from an online database (Table 1) and previ-
cesses within represented sub-systems, thus enabling a flexibility ous studies (Table 2). Capital costs for food technologies were es-
such that it can accommodate the assessment of any system in- timated based on the type of crops grown and area cultivated. As
volving identified EWF resource sectors. As such, outcomes of this for the annual operating costs used in assessing the economic per-
study will inform decision-makers in the design of optimum tech- formance of the case suggested, they are represented as the LCOEs
nology portfolios, which minimise costs and environmental im- associated with each energy technology and were assumed based
pacts with respect to food security scenarios for a case study in on a previous work conducted by the authors (Govindan et al.,
Qatar. 2018). Environmental impact values represented by GWP asso-
ciated with each technology involved in the EWF Nexus sys-
3. Materials and methods tem are computed based on local data collected from literature.
Table 3 describes the set of data used to conduct the methodol-
The methodology adopted in this study aims to improve the ogy of this study. Case-specific data is described in detail in the
current level of domestic food production in Qatar by allocat- case study and scenario formulation section of the methodology
ing multiple water and energy technologies to attain a 40% self- (Section 3.3).
sufficiency level in perishable food production. This is achieved
through a EWF Nexus-based methodology that combines quanti- 3.2. Methodology description
tative analysis of the actual economic and environmental perfor-
mance of the food sector. In addition, an optimisation functionality The methodology followed in this study is composed of two
targeting the identification of the optimal technology mix is pro- main parts: 1) an economic and environmental assessments of a
posed, with the objective to enhance: (1) economic performance EWF Nexus system charged with locally producing perishable crops
represented by the yearly total cost (TC) (capital (CC) and operating under two different levels of food self-sufficiency and using cur-
(OC)) of all energy and water technologies contributing to the EWF rent technologies; and 2) an optimisation model that serves the
 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513 7

Fig. 1a. General outline of the methodology adopted.

same purpose while suggesting a hypothetical EWF Nexus config- T Ce = CCe + OCe (1)
uration fuelled by diverse energy and water technologies. The fol-
lowing sections provide a detailed explanation of the computations CCe = CCng (2)
conducted to assess economic and environmental performances of
the local food production nexus system. In addition, the optimisa- OCe = OCe−w + OCe− f (3)
tion framework used to evaluate the potential of diversifying the
technology mix within the same nexus system is formulated. 3.2.1.2. Water system: groundwater and TSE. To compute the total
cost of water ( TCw ) for the current EWF Nexus system, only the
3.2.1. Economic performance of current EWF nexus systems capital costs (CCw ) were considered, comprised the costs of using
The economic analysis computes the total cost of the current groundwater (CCgw ) and TSE (CCtse ). Operating costs (OCw ) were as-
EWF Nexus system responsible for providing the current food pro- sumed to be associated with the energy required to pump water
file. This cost involves capital investments in all technologies de- in the case of aquifer (OCe−gw ) and the energy to treat it for TSE
ployed in addition to the yearly operating cost of all participating (OCe−tse ). For groundwater, the cost includes bore, pump, fuel tank
entities. and motor, while for TSE it includes tanks, pipes, and pumps. Eqs.
(4)–(8) describe the steps followed to assess the economic perfor-
3.2.1.1. Energy system. Economic assessment of the energy sector mance of the water system.
was conducted using Eqs. (1)–(3), where TCe is the total cost for T Cw = CCw + OCw (4)
energy, CCe is the capital cost and OCe is the operating cost. OCe is
assumed to be the sum of OCe−w , the operating cost for energy CCw = CCgw + CCtse (5)
used to produce water, and OCe− f representing the operating cost
required to produce food. OCw = OCe−w = OCe−gw + OCe−tse (6)
8 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513

Table 4
Key data for 22% self-sufficiency food profile (MDPS, 2016).

Crop Quantity produced Quantity Self-sufficiency Area (Ha) Water required Fertilisers Energy required
(Tons) consumed (%) (m3 ) required (kg) (kWh)
(Tons)

Cereals 1377.00 692,891.00 0.20 294.00 10,025,400.00 543.10 4,787,791.00

Vegetables 53,596.00 435,583.00 12.30 2140.00 366,196,800.00 29,567.00 175,094,592.00
Fruits 29,794.00 265,962.00 11.20 2652.00 202,493,460.00 53,858.00 97,635,995.00
Green Fodder 483,210.00 1,701,443.00 28.40 5935.00 174,584,663.00 124,635.00 88,223,449.00
Meat (Red and poultry) 183,988 376,732 48.83 204 220,789,222 – 105,181,532
Total 183,988.00 376,732.00 48.83 204.00 220,789,222.00 – 105,181,532.00

Energy requirements to generate water were computed using two
different methods based on the source of water. For groundwa-
ter, which is the basis of irrigation for all human-consumed crops
and 96% of green fodder, it was calculated using Eq. (7) that is
multiplied by the unit cost of electricity (ce ) (Rothausen and Con-
way, 2011). As for the energy required to treat wastewater, it is es-
timated to be 1.2 kWh for each cubic meter produced (Jasim et al.,
2016).
9.8 × L × M
OCe−gw = ce
3.6 × 106 × η p
OCe−tse = 1.2 ce
Where, lift (L) is assumed to be 70 m, mass (M) is converted into
volume and the pump efficiency (ηp ) is 40% (Wang et al., 2012).
3.2.1.3. Food system: food profile for 22% self-sufficiency level. For
this study, the food system considered consists of agricultural ac-
tivities, production, and application of fertilisers in addition to food
processing. It is responsible for delivering 10% by weight of the to-
tal population requirements from food. In this study, the emphasis
will be on perishable food groups only i.e. vegetables, fruits and
meat in addition to primary storable food i.e. cereals, which all to-
gether contribute to 22% of the local food self-sufficiency level (SS)
in the stated food categories (see Table 4). In order to determine
this value for each food category, the following equation is used,
where (QP) is the quantity produced and (QC) is the quantity con-
sumed:
QP
SS =
QC
Perishable products are grown with by two different methods:
open fields and greenhouses. As for wheat and green fodder, it is
entirely based on outdoor cultivation.
With regard to the total cost ( TCf ) of the food system consid-
ered in this study, it encompasses initial investments related to all
technologies involved in delivering the current quantity of goods
calculated using Eq. (12) for plants, and in the case of livestock, it
is equivalent to energy for water only.
As mentioned previously, the total cost of the food profile pre-
sented above is equal to the sum of the capital costs for all tech-
nologies involved in the EWF Nexus in addition to the operat-
ing cost represented by energy fees charged by local electricity
company (Eq. (13)). Since power is sourced solely from the grid
(CCGT plants), its unit cost (ce ) is estimated using the local cost of
electricity which is $0.07/kWh (Kahramaa, 2017). Greenhouses and
(7) livestock shelters costs are estimated using the area they cover,
which in this case are equivalent to 244 Ha and 204 Ha of total
(8) arable land, respectively. Irrigations systems used currently vary as
a function of the crop cultivated. For instance, vegetables and green
fodder are watered using basins and furrows, or centre pivot for
large-scale fields. Bubblers are used for fruits, while drip irrigation
is adopted for greenhouses. The total installation cost is assumed
to be around $665 (MDPS, 2016). For fertilisers’ production plant,
installation cost is equivalent to $0.9 million (Wordbank, n.d).
T C = T Ce + T Cw + T C f (13)
3.2.2. Environmental performance of the current EWF nexus systems
The second target of this study is to evaluate the total environ-
mental impact of Qatar’s food production EWF Nexus. The lifecycle
environmental burden is represented in term of the Global Warm-
ing Potential (GWP) expressed in kg of CO2 equivalents considering
greenhouses gases GHG’s (CO2 , CH4 , and N2 O) (IPCC, 2014). The
system boundary of this EWF Nexus system is based on the base-
line scenario model developed by Al-Ansari et al. (2017), where
(9)
CCGT is used to power all water and food system. Emissions con-
sidered in this configuration come from energy used for water and
fertilisers’ production, as well as emissions from livestock waste.
The functional unit is assumed to be 1 kWh/year of electricity. The
environmental burden is computed using the following equation:

j

produced i.e. irrigation systems (CCis ), greenhouses (CCgh ), and sta- EI = G je f j (14)
bles for livestock (CCst ) (Eq. (11)). Land is not included as areas j=1

utilised for agricultural purposes are assumed to be free in terms
of cost. As for operating costs ( OCf ), they are computed using the
total energy produced to satisfy water (OCe−w ) and fertilisers re-
quirements (OCe− f er ) (Eq. (12)). Energy required for electricity gen-
eration is neglected in this analysis.
T C f = CC f + OC f
CC f = CCis + CCgh + CCst
 
OC f = OCe− f = OCe−w + OCe− f er = ce Ew + E f er
Regarding the energy consumed for fertilisers production, it is
assumed to be equal to 21.73 kWh/kg including production, trans-
portation, packaging and application expenses (Gellings and Par-
menter, 2004). Moreover, the total energy presented in Table 4 is
where Gj are emissions from GHGs, efj is the GWP factor of GHGs
relative to CO2 GWP, and j is either CO2 , CH4 , or N2 O.
3.2.3. Economic and environmental performance of an increased
self-sufficiency EWF nexus system
(10) The aforementioned steps are used to analyse a EWF Nexus
system with an increased self-sufficiency level of 40%. The equa-
(11) tions previously described are used in the assessment with a slight
difference in the data utilised. At first, the quantity of food pro-
duced is assumed to be increased to 1389,044.4 tons, denoting a
(12) 40% self-sufficiency level. This increase is assumed to be added
to vegetables, as they are products in high demand. Subsequently,
the total costs and GWP emissions of the proposed level are com-
puted using the same steps. However, capital costs and operat-
ing costs for CCGT are estimated using the LCOE computed by
 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513 9

Fig. 2. Stochastic LCOEs for CCGT with and without CC integration (Govindan et al., 2018).

Govindan et al. (2018) which is $0.093/kWh. This value considers Algorithm that finds the Pareto front of multi-objective optimisa-
both capital investments and operating expenses along with a con- tion problems in Matlab. As for the spatial and temporal scales,
sideration of time value of money over the lifespan of the energy the model developed is assumed to be uniform under different ge-
source. ographical characteristics. It is generic and can be applied to under
various settings. It is also assumed to be in a steady state over
3.2.4. Energy and water technology selection using multi-objective time.
stochastic linear programming optimisation
The final stage in this study is to ascertain the optimal water
and energy combination that could be adopted by the food sec- 3.2.4.2. Mathematical representation. The following variables, pa-
tor to achieve 40% of self-sufficiency in perishable food production. rameters and assumptions were used in the model formulation:
In order to fulfil this target, a stochastic multi-objective optimisa-
tion model is developed. Multi-objective optimisation is a type of
optimisation dedicated to solving problems with a set of goals ei- Objective functions
ther conflicting or non-conflicting. The output of this framework 
9 
5 
2
min ciw xw + cie xei + rie∗ xei ∗ Identifies the optimal
highlights synergies and trade-offs existing amongst the different i=6
i
i=3 i=1
energy and water
targets (Sedarous et al., 2017). Some of these objectives are some- technologies technology
times governed by risks and uncertainties that deter the formula- mix that minimises the
tion of robust models and therefore hinder decision-making which total cost of the EWF
system delivering 40% of
is the ultimate goal of optimisation (Sahinidis, 2004). To account
Qatar’s demand for food.
for perturbations associated with uncertainties, stochastic optimi-
Subject to:
sation could be incorporated with the multi-objective one to de-
liver robust solutions. 
5 
2
min gei xei + gei xei ∗ Identifies the optimal
i=3 i=1
energy technologies mix
that minimises GWP.
3.2.4.1. Model formulation. The first objective function minimises

9
the total cost of the food Nexus system taking into ac- xw
i
= 100% The sum of all
i=6
count the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) estimated by contribution percentages
of water technologies
Govindan et al. (2018) for the gas-based and PV, in addition to the must be 100%.
cost of electricity applied to water technologies (Darwish, 2014; 
5 
2
xei + xei ∗ = 100% The sum of all
Darwish et al., 2016). For all energy sources, LCOEs are deter- i=3 i=1
contribution percentages
ministic expressed using their average value, except for CCGT and of energy technologies
CCGT+CC, which are represented as a normal distribution gener- must be 100%.
ated with a Monte Carlo simulation (Fig. 2). The purpose of the xe1∗ ≤ 20% CCGT being the only
current energy plant must
second objective function is to minimise the environmental im-
contribute with at least
pact associated with energy technologies being the main source 20% in the new
of emissions in comparison to water sources. The environmental hypothetical scenario (c).
burden is represented as a function of Global Warming Potential 8 ≤ Wmax
txw Restricts the participation
(GWP) computed over the lifecycle of the plant (Al-Ansari et al., of groundwater to the
water mix, being the
2017).
scarcest water resource in
The mathematical formulation of the model is presented in the the country studied.
following section; data used to run the optimisation model is de- xw
i
, xei , xei ∗ > 0 Implies that all decision
scribed in Table 5 along with indexes associated with each tech- variables must be strictly
positive.
nology. The optimisation formulation was solved using the Genetic
10 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513
Table 5
Economic and environmental data used for the optimisation model.
Objective function CCGT (1) CCGT+CC (2)
Cost($/kWh-$/m3 ) μ=0.093 σ =0.005 μ=0.096 σ = 0.004
GWP(kg of CO2 eq) 994,305,184 536,835,184
Decision variables:
xwi
: the percentage of contribution of each water source.
xei : the percentage of contribution of each energy source exclud-
ing CCGT and CCGT+CC.
xe ∗ : the percentage of contribution of CCGT and CCGT+CC.
Parameters:
ciw : the unit cost of water.
cie : the levelized cost of electricity for energy technologies ex-
cluding CCGT and CCGT+CC.
re ∗ : the levelized cost of electricity for CCGT and CCGT+CC fol-
lowing a random distribution N ∼ (μ, σ ).
gei : the global warming potential.
t: the amount of ground water used for the production of 40%
self-sufficiency level of food.
Wmax : the annual renewable rate of groundwater in Qatar as-
sumed to be 58 million m3 per year (Darwish, 2014).
Assumptions
The EWF nexus adopted in the optimisation model does not in-
volve the food sector explicitly in the technology selection, how-
ever its contribution is translated through the water and energy
required to produce food.
The environmental impact of the water sector is expressed as
the environmental burden resulted from the energy required to de-
salinate, treat or pump water.
3.3. Qatar case study and scenario formulation
In recent years, the food system has become a strategic sec-
tor in Qatar as it strives to enhance its domestic self-sufficiency.
Geopolitical issues and climatic conditions are considered the
stressors to the availability of food as historically approximately
90% of the local demand for food has been imported (QNFSP, 2013).
As such, there is an inherent need within Qatar to overcome vul-
nerabilities associated with its traditional dependence on global
food markets, such as food price fluctuations and supply chain dis-
ruptions. Therefore, domestic production must increase by over-
coming the local stressors as part of a wider effort to enhance the
resilience of the Qatar food system.
Considering that Qatar is characterised by a disproportionate
distribution of resources, it presents itself as a unique case study
for the EWF Nexus analysis. This is because whilst the State of
Qatar is considered rich in energy resources in the form of fossil
fuels, namely natural gas and oil, and abundance of potential so-
lar energy to utilise, it suffers from a lack of fresh water reserves
and is situated in a hyper arid climate, which is not conducive for
agriculture. In terms of natural gas reserves, Qatar is ranked third
after Russia and Iran with an approximate 910 Trillion ft2 of natu-
ral gas (Chedid et al., 2007). Natural freshwater resources in Qatar
are scarce and are sourced from two sources only, groundwater,
and low annual precipitation. To overcome this shortage, Qatar has
introduced seawater desalination (providing 99% of the municipal
requirements) and increasing efforts to reuse wastewater in what
is known as treated sewage effluent (TSE). Nevertheless, agricul-
ture, is the second highest water consumer sector in Qatar after
households, is fully dependent on groundwater with a minor con-
tribution of TSE. In fact, the latter is used to irrigate 35% only of
PV (3) BIGCC (4) BECCS (5) RO (6) MSF (7) GW (8) TSE (9)
0.215 0.11 0.113 0.80 2.43 0.07 0.11
98,328 0 −130,998,689 – – – –
the total green fodder for animal feed produced locally; the re-
maining portion and other crops are entirely grown using aquifer
water (MDPS, 2015). In addition to water depletion, there are mul-
tiple challenges associated with expanding agricultural production,
which include difficult climate conditions and relatively low quan-
tities of arable land that is limited to 5.65% of the total land area
in Qatar (MDPS, 2016).
The matrix illustrated in Fig. 3 details the sub-systems and sce-
narios considered in this study. Essentially, the scenarios studied
as part of this research vary according to the specifications of the
food profile and the deployment of the additional energy and wa-
ter sub-systems. In the first scenario, the current state or the base-
line is highlighted, where the food sector in Qatar is responsi-
ble for the delivery of 22% of perishable products (approximately
10% of the total food requirements), wherein the remaining de-
mand is imported from the global food market. The second and
third scenarios arise from the need to design independent, and
sustainable food systems that can satisfy local demands for prod-
ucts, face unexpected trade supply disruptions, and adopt sustain-
able behaviours in operations. To achieve this goal, the Qatar Na-
tional Food Security Program proposed a hypothetical level of pro-
duction represented by a 40% self-sufficiency (QNFSP, 2013). This
level is fulfilled in the second scenario using the existing water
and energy technologies, while in the third one, new technolo-
gies are deployed to reach 40% self-sufficiency in perishable food.
The methodology proposed within this study, could be applied to
achieve any targeted percentage. In this work, 40% is only used as
an illustrative example to demonstrate the model, based on previ-
ous analysis conducted by Al-Ansari et al. (2015, 2017).
The sub-systems considered as part of the baseline (scenario
(a)) and scenario (2) EWF Nexus system includes a combined cy-
cle gas turbine (CCGT) for the energy system, groundwater (GW)
pumping and treated sewage effluent (TSE) for the water system.
As for the food system, it is comprised of open-field and green-
houses cultivation, along with raising of livestock. The hypothetical
scenario (c) includes additional energy sub-systems consisting of
carbon capture (CC) system integrated to the CCGT, photovoltaics
(PV), biomass integrated gasification combined cycles (BIGCC) as-
sumed to be carbon neutral and bio-energy with carbon capture
and storage (BECCS) assumed to be carbon negative. Furthermore,
reverse osmosis (RO) and multi-stage flash (MSF) desalination are
added to the water mix.
The choice of these technologies is not arbitrary and is de-
rived from the need to create a diversified and sustainable energy
portfolio. Besides achieving food security with an effective alloca-
tion of economic resources, it is also fundamental to reflect upon
the environmental burden caused by the dependency on natural
gas in all energy activities. In comparison to the mix proposed,
CCGT is the most effective source in terms of energy generation
as it can reach an efficiency level of 60% (Al-Ansari et al., 2015;
Breeze, 2019). Nevertheless, regarding the environmental burden
from power production, fossil-fuel fired power plants present a
larger source of emissions. In fact, natural gas contributes to GWP
with 90% more in comparison to biomass and 80% more com-
pared to solar energy technologies (WNA, 2011). Moreover, shift-
ing to renewables is an advantageous alternative for Qatar as it
provides further opportunity for natural gas exports. According to
Sanfilippo and Pederson (2016) savings in natural gas could be di-
rected towards activities to enhance economic performance of the
 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513
Fig. 3. A matrix illustration of scenarios investigated.
country such as investing in renewable energy technologies. In fact,
by 2030 electricity generated from solar power plants can amount
to 2.13 Mtoe reduction in natural gas dependency. In addition,
Govindan et al. (2018) concluded that PV and biomass integra-
tion in the energy portfolio generally reduces economic risks when
compared to pure and undiversified energy supply from CCGT with
or without the post-combustion CC system.
Concerning water technologies, groundwater is the main source
for irrigation in Qatar, constituting more than 90% of total wa-
ter requirements in agriculture. Besides the high dependency
on it for all agricultural activities, many farms are discharging
brine generated from desalinating brackish water back into the
ground increasing the salinity of remaining reserves and soils
(Darwish, 2014). Moreover, growing food with low quality ground-
water affects both natural reserves and quality of crops (Kim et al.,
2016).To account for the aforementioned discrepancies associated
with the utilisation of groundwater in agriculture, more cost and
energy efficient water technologies must be introduced. Reuse of
TSE is a favourable alternative that can substitute groundwater, as
it is a continuous of water that is generated steadily from wastew-
ater. More extensive exploitation of TSE is very beneficial for na-
tional water planning as it represents a cheaper alternative to de-
salination, and a more sustainable option than the reliance on
groundwater (Darwish, 2014). However, in Qatar, TSE is used to
grow animal crops due to social limitations in its use for human
consumption. Consequently, desalination can be considered as an
irrigation source for food crops produced for human consump-
tion in order to reduce groundwater depletion. Currently, desali-
nation using MSF is adopted in Qatar for industrial, domestic and
recreational activities. In this study, both MSF and RO are intro-
duced to assess their contribution to the economic and environ-
mental performance of the proposed food production nexus. RO is
added as a source for water as its intake is three times less than
MSF and its CO2 emissions is 2.05 kg/m3 versus 8.18 kg/m3 for MSF
(Darwish et al., 2013). The following section represents technolo-
gies previously described in the form of three different EWF Nexus
scenarios for producing local perishable food in Qatar.
3.3.1. Scenario (a) and (b): EWF nexus food production system with
current technologies
The current food production sector in Qatar is represented by
scenario (a) which is operating within an integrative EWF Nexus
configuration consisting of an energy system comprised of fossil
fuel-based power plants limited to CCGT, a water system based on
GW pumping and TSE. The food system encompasses open fields
and greenhouses cultivation, fertilisers’ production and the raising
11
of livestock. This nexus configuration is responsible for locally pro-
ducing 22% of the local demand for perishable crops in Qatar. Fig. 4
describes the EWF Nexus adopted to produce food products within
Qatar. The same nexus configuration is denoting scenario (b). The
systems involved in the latter are the same; however, the target is
to reach and increased self-sufficiency level of 40%. The increase of
this value is achieved through a rise in the production of vegeta-
bles crops being the most demanded perishable food products.
3.3.2. Scenario (c): EWF nexus food production system with
diversified technology mix
To enhance the economic and environmental performance of
the previous EWF Nexus system, new energy and water technolo-
gies are incorporated. In fact, considering an alternative to com-
plete reliance on fossil fuel-based power plants, renewable energy
sources, such as PVs and biomass, are added to the mix along with
water desalination technologies. The new proposed nexus configu-
ration is based on the set of hypothetical technologies considered
by Al-Ansari et al. (2017) in environmentally assessing the EWF
Nexus system responsible for the production of 40% self-sufficiency
level for the State of Qatar. This study combines the economic and
environmental assessment of a hypothetical nexus system, aiming
to achieve the same level of self-sufficiency. The energy system is
comprised of a combination of renewable and non-renewable tech-
nologies i.e. CCGT, CCGT+CC, BIGCC, BECCS and PV, while RO and
MSF desalination are merged into the water system as illustrated
in Fig. 5. The interlinkages considered in this study are annotated
in Fig. 5. The following relationships are not considered: (1) wa-
ter to energy, which would be used in the cooling of power plants,
and (2) food to water represented by the concept of virtual water.
4. Results and discussion
The following section provides a detailed explanation and dis-
cussion of the results. First, results for scenarios (a) and (b) rep-
resenting the current nexus technology configuration is discussed,
followed by results of the optimisation model characterising the
hypothetical scenario (c). A payback period analysis is also in-
cluded to assess the economic profitability of the hypothetical sce-
nario.
4.1. Scenario (a) and (b): EWF nexus food production system with
current technologies
Results for scenarios (a) and (b) are summarised in Tables 6 and
7 and Figs. 6 and 7. Results for both scenarios are combined in
the following section, since they both characterise the EWF Nexus
12 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513

Fig. 4. Schematic of the current food production EWF Nexus system in Qatar (scenarios (a) and (b)).

Table 6 sions from energy used in the production of fertilisers increase

Cost results of 22% self-sufficiency food profile.
significantly to satisfy the additional cultivation of vegetables. The
Capital Costs (M$) Operating Costs (M$) value of emissions from livestock manure and enteric fermentation
Water Facilities 16 – are constant, as the number of livestock is fixed for both scenarios
Energy Facilities 76 – (a) and (b). Fig. 6 illustrates the difference between environmen-
Food Facilities 0.92 – tal emissions from scenario (a) and (b). The total costs and envi-
Energy Generation – 33 ronmental burden of this section are presented in the comparative
Table 8 along with scenario (c) results.
Table 7
Cost results of 40% self-sufficiency food profile.

Capital Costs (M$) Operating Costs (M$)
ater Facilities 16 –
Energy Facilities 179 – The genetic algorithm is adopted to solve the multi-objective
Food Facilities 916 – optimisation problem. It considers the impact of volatility of natu-
Energy Generation – 78
system operating with current technologies. Capital and operating
costs illustrated in Tables 6 and 7 respectively experience a sig-
nificant increase in scenario (b), due to the additional quantity of
food produced, and translated as 40% self-sufficiency level. In fact,
expanding domestic food production requires greater utilisation for
water and energy resources and representative systems. Expanding
food systems represented by larger agricultural land footprints re-
quire that energy systems expand in order to generate more elec-
tricity to increase quantity of cultivated crops. As for water tech-
nologies, mainly relying on electricity to treat (TSE) and to pump
ground water, the cost remains the same, yet their expansion is ex-
pressed as the additional energy requirements represented by the
annual operating costs of energy generation. As for the GWP, emis-
sions from energy deployed for water provision along with emis-
4.2. Scenario (c): optimisation model
ral gas prices on LCOE values for CCGT and CCGT+CC power plants.
For simplicity, a sample of 23 LCOE values is used to describe the
effect of stochasticity of gas prices on the set of Pareto fronts.
Fig. 7 illustrates that under different costs, optimal solutions vary
slightly. This change is more flagrant when the optimal solutions
from each front are plotted against the two objective functions as
illustrated in Fig. 8. In addition, the impact of gas prices and LCOE
values would be more significant if the energy system was fully
driven by fossil-based power. These results demonstrate that diver-
sification of the energy mix is an efficient option to hedge against
variation of gas prices and therefore reduce risks associated with
the full reliance on natural gas-based energy sources. In the con-
text of food security and food availability, in particular, control-
ling stochasticity in gas prices by deploying alternative energy re-
sources could help in monitoring the food production processes.
In fact, cultivation and raising of livestock mainly relies on energy
in the form of electricity, i.e. water provision for irrigation and
 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513 13

Fig. 5. Schematic of the hypothetical food production EWF Nexus system in Qatar (scenario(c)).

Fig. 6. Comparative table of GWP emissions for the current EWF Nexus under 22% and 40% self-sufficiency levels.

Table 8
Comparative table between the three scenarios results.

Scenario Values

Cost (M$/kWh) 22% (a) 125

40% ((b), current technologies) 273
40% ((c), optimal) 6795
Environmental Impact (kgCO2eq ) 22% (a) 190,101,760.4
40% ((b), current technologies) 338,381,133.5
40% ((c), optimal) 134,760,572
14 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513
Fig. 7. Optimal Pareto fronts of the model under 23 LCOEs for CCGT and CCGT+CC.
production of fertilisers; therefore, any fluctuation in the energy
sector could be risky for the food sector.
The purpose of the optimisation model is to identify the opti-
mal water and energy technology mix that can accommodate ad-
ditional food quantities. It aims to reduce the impact of fluctua-
tions of gas prices on the performance of a food production sys-
tem targeting an increased self-sufficiency level (scenario (b)). In
this scenario, LCOE was used as an economic indicator to com-
pare the costs of energy portfolios over the economic lifetime. Re-
sults of scenario (c) demonstrate that the average optimal solution
generated by this model occurs at an LCOE value of $0.0978/kWh
for CCGT and $0.0997/kWh for CCGT+CC and leads to a diver-
sified energy mix incorporating all proposed technologies to the
energy system. BECCS is the major contributor to electricity gen-
eration with a value of 67%, which can be explained by its neu-
tral environmental impact and relatively cheap cost. CCGT partic-
ipation is restricted to 20% instead of a total dependency as with
the current state due to its significant emissions. Restricting CCGT
to 20% is an assumed governmental policy for transitioning to re-
newable energy in the future. As for PV, it is introduced as an
environmental-friendly option regardless of its very expensive rel-
ative cost. In this case, PV represents an economic trade-off to off-
set the environmental impact associated with producing additional
food, which is highlighted in the results of scenario (b) (Table 8).
BIGCC is also part of the mix as it is an efficient alternative com-
pared to the remaining technologies, both economically and en-
vironmentally. The contribution of BIGCC is very small compared
to BECCS due to the negative emission characteristics of the latter.
Fig. 9 summarises the optimal results for energy sources of the op-
timisation model. As for water technologies, RO was selected over
all the other sources as it has the lowest cost amongst desalina-
tion plants and is in fact the most energy efficiency. GW is not
selected due to the capacity constraint highlighting the scarce sit-
uation of groundwater, which consists of only 58 Mm3 of renew-
able water per year. As for MSF, it is rejected considering its very
high unit cost. In a similar work previously conducted by the au-
thors (Namany et al., 2018), where the objective was to minimise
the capital costs, without consideration of operating cost, CCGT and
BECCS were the only energy power plants selected with a full con-
tribution of RO. The reason for this selection is due to the low cost
of the CCGT and potential for negative emissions from BECCS. In
this study, the introduction of a second environmental objective,
gas prices fluctuations along with the consideration of operating
costs, have given an opportunity for BIGCC and PV to be part of
the mix. In fact, adopting a multi-objective perspective allows for
more diversity in the energy mix.
Results of this scenario allow for a significant contribution from
the biomass sector in the energy mix. Although in some cases, this
might raise the issue of competition between the energy and the
food sector, in this case study, the biomass considered is waste
 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513
Fig. 8. Average optimal solution under 23 CCGT and CCGT+CC LCOEs.
Fig. 9. The optimal energy mix of scenario (c).
manure which would have otherwise been disposed of. However,
competition may arise between the demand to convert manure
to compost to improve agricultural productivity and the utilisation
of manure as an energy resource. In the case of Qatar, where the
biomass for energy is likely to be sourced from waste biomass such
as date pits and food waste, competition between sectors would
not affect the activity of the food sector and would not hinder ef-
forts to increase levels of self-sufficiency (Alnouss et al., 2018). In
15
the case of other countries with different resource profiles, game
theoretic approaches that can model the competition between sec-
tors can be applied within an optimisation model for a more com-
prehensive analysis of the EWF Nexus food production system.
The hypothetical food production nexus system results in
an optimal total cost equal to M$6795 per year and a GWP
134,760,572 kg per CO2 eq over a 25-year time interval. These val-
ues do not consider the cost of food system facilities and the en-
vironmental impact of livestock manure as the food system is not
considered in the optimisation model. In comparison with the hy-
pothetical case considering current technologies and 40% domestic
production, the optimal system suggests a 24-fold increase in the
cost to produce the same quantity. This significant additional cost
is due to the introduction of costly technologies that require ex-
pensive installation costs and continuous operating expenses com-
pared to CCGT only. However, the optimal scenario (c) resulted in a
60% reduction of the yearly GWP value. In other words, each 1$ in-
vested in energy and water technologies can engender a reduction
0.019 kg per CO2 eq in GWP. If the optimal results are compared
with the 22% self-sufficiency case, both environmental impact and
cost functions are much less than the optimal solution since the
remaining 18%, representing the difference between the two levels
is imported from abroad. In terms of cost, this percentage repre-
sents M$ 764 considering the value of the goods imported only
(MME, 2016). This new value reduces the gap between the current
(22%) and optimal scenario. In fact, the optimal case (scenario c)
requires 4 times more funds to be implemented, which is to some
extent reasonable considering the technologies added to the mix.
Table 8 compares economic and environmental performance of the
16 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513
Table 9
Discounted cash flows summary table.
Year Cash Inflow (M$) Present Value factor
1 700.50 0.95
2 700.50 0.91
3 700.50 0.86
4 700.50 0.82
5 700.50 0.78
6 700.50 0.75
7 700.50 0.71
8 700.50 0.68
three scenarios without consideration for the computation of im-
ports.
4.3. Payback period
The monetary gap between the two cases is still significant due
to the deployment of new technologies. However, in the long run
adopting a diversified mix can be more beneficial since the current
food system is based on finite natural resources. In addition, most
of investments have an initial investment, which can be recov-
ered through an operating profit in what is known as the payback
period, which determines the economic feasibility of the project
(Investopedia, 2018). In this case, payback period is computed to
illustrate the usefulness of the optimal scenario regardless of its
very high initial cost.
The assumptions that are considered in the computation of the
payback period include: (1) the total cost generated from the op-
timisation model is assumed to be the initial investment for this
project as it encompasses capital costs as well as initial operat-
ing expenses, since it is based on LCOE values. The system is re-
sponsible for delivering 40% of food requirements in the form of
perishable food. Therefore, cash inflows are computed based on
the value of crops produced every year, and it is equivalent to
$700 million per year; (2) the interest rate used for the discount-
ing process it is assumed to be 5% for Qatar as per last records
(Trading Economics, n.d). The payback period (PP) is calculated us-
ing Eq. (15) and detailed steps of computations are presented in
Table 9.
UC
PP = y + (15)
CF
Applications of the discounted payback period method to the
optimal project propose yields a payback value of 7.63 years, which
implies a sound economic feasibility, especially when compared to
the useful lifespan of technologies operating within the proposed
system, which can range between 20 and 30 years. In addition,
considering carbon pricing as a reward to compensate for the en-
vironmental impact reduction may encourage the adoption of such
renewable systems as it represents a monetary incentive for in-
vestors.
5. Conclusion
Coordinated efforts throughout all levels of the economy, in-
cluding energy and water sectors are necessary for food security, a
pertinent target of sustainable development. In aspiring food secu-
rity, interlinkages between EWF resource systems should be con-
sidered as part of an integrated resource assessment, particularly
in uncertain and risky environments characterised by a dispropor-
tionate distribution of resources.
In this study, a multidimensional approach based on a EWF
Nexus approach is adopted which considers the economic and
environmental performance of various technology options. The
Discounted Inflows (M$) Cumulative Cash inflow (M$)
667.14 667.14
635.37 1302.52
605.12 1907.64
576.30 2483.94
548.86 3032.80
522.72 3555.52
497.83 4053.35
474.13 4527.48
methodology presented is flexible and can be reproduced to as-
sess any resource management problem involving investment de-
cisions. Based on the study, increasing self-sufficiency levels from
the current 22% to 40% requires larger investments, consisting of
an additional $140 M and implies almost a twofold increase in en-
vironmental burden, equivalent to 150,0 0 0,0 0 0 kg of CO2eq . How-
ever, findings from this study assert that opting for a varied portfo-
lio through investing in new technologies is both economically and
environmentally viable. Indeed, diversifying the energy and water
mixes can reduce environmental impacts significantly, albeit with
a very high initial cost. In fact, $1 invested in sustainable energy
and water systems can reduce GWP emissions by 60% equiva-
lent to 0.019 kg of CO2eq per year. This reduction is mainly asso-
ciated with the introduction of BECCS, which is a negative emis-
sions technology. This value could appear minimal in comparison
to the expenses it implies, yet, the third scenario illustrates a rela-
tively short payback period, less than 8 years, implying favourable
economic performance. However, the implied difference between
economic and environmental results can create conflict amongst
policymakers at the governance level of EWF resource sectors. It
can be considered that this option is economically risky; however,
there is a corresponding positive contribution to reduce the envi-
ronmental impacts and adopt the hypothetical scenario (c).
The optimisation model demonstrated in this study could be
enhanced in future work to include resource allocation that quan-
tifies synergies amongst energy, water, and food systems. Addi-
tional constraints could also be implemented to account for other
risks and uncertainties such as unpredictable climatic conditions
or competition between sectors. Finally, going forward, a modelling
of multiple stakeholders involved in this Nexus system along with
their conflicting objectives must be undertaken. In addition, to ac-
count for all costs and emissions associated with food sector in
Qatar, the system boundary must be expanded to include supply
chains and international trade, since most of food products are im-
ported. Considering food security and associated technology inte-
gration, smart agriculture could also be introduced to the food sec-
tor as a tool to enhance its operating efficiency. In addition, new
technologies should be deployed to reduce the burden on fresh
groundwater.
Acknowledgement
This research is supported by a scholarship from Hamad Bin
Khalifa University (HBKU), member of the Qatar Foundation.
References
Al-Ansari, T., Korre, A., Nie, Z., Shah, N., 2015. Development of a life cy-
cle assessment tool for the assessment of food production systems within
the energy, water and food nexus. Sustain. Prod. Consump. 2, 52–66.
https://doi.org/10.016/j.spc.2015.07.005.
Al-Ansari, T., Korre, A., Nie, Z., Shah, N., 2017. Integration of greenhouse gas control
technologies within the energy, water and food nexus to enhance the environ-
mental performance of food production systems. J Clean Prod 162, 1592–1606.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.097.
 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513
Albrecht, T.R., Crootof, A., Scott, C.A., 2018. The water-energy-food nexus: a compre-
hensive review of nexus-specific methods. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.
1088/1748-9326/aaa9c6.
Alnouss, A., Mckay, G., Al-Ansari, T., 2018. Optimum Utilization of Biomass for the
Production of Power and Fuels Using Gasification. In: Computer Aided Chemical
Engineering 28th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineer-
ing, pp. 1481–1486. doi:10.1016/b978- 0- 444- 64235- 6.50258- 8.
Berge, H.T., Hijbeek, R., Loon, M.V., Rurinda, J., Tesfaye, K., Zingore, S., . . ., It-
tersum, M.V., 2019. Maize crop nutrient input requirements for food secu-
rity in sub-Saharan africa. Glob. Food Secur. 23, 9–21. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2019.
02.001.
Bernardi, A., Giarola, S., Bezzo, F., 2012. Optimizing the economics and the carbon
and water footprints of bioethanol supply chains. Biofuel. Bioprod. Biorefin. 6
(6), 656–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1358.
Beykal, B., Boukouvala, F., Floudas, C.A., Pistikopoulos, E.N., 2018. Optimal design of
energy systems using constrained grey-box multi-objective optimization. Com-
put. Chem. Eng. 116, 488–502. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2018.02.017.
Breeze, P.A., 2019. Power generation technologies. Newnes, an imprint of Elsevier,
Kidlington, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Campana, P.E., Zhang, J., Yao, T., Andersson, S., Landelius, T., Melton, F., Yan, J., 2018.
Managing agricultural drought in Sweden using a novel spatially-explicit model
from the perspective of water-food-energy nexus. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 1382–1393.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.096.
Chedid, R., Kobrosly, M., Ghajar, R., 2007. The potential of gas-to-liquid technology in
the energy market: the case of Qatar. Energy Policy 35 (10), 4799–4811. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.03.017.
Darwish, M., 2014. Qatar water problem and solar desalination. Desalinat. Water
Treat. 52 (7–9), 1250–1262. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2013.815684.
Darwish, M.A., Abdulrahim, H.K., Hassan, A.S., 2015. Realistic power and desalted
water production costs in Qatar. Desalinat. Water Treat 57, 1–7. https://doi:10.
1080/19443994.2014.992977.
Darwish, M.A., Abdulrahim, H.K., Hassan, A.S., 2016. Realistic power and desalted
water production costs in Qatar. Desalinat. Water Treat. 57 (10), 4296–4302.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.992977.
Darwish, M., Hassabou, A.H., Shomar, B., 2013. Using Seawater Reverse Osmosis
(SWRO) desalting system for less environmental impacts in Qatar. Desalination
309, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.09.026.
EIA. (2018). Levelized cost and levelized avoided cost of new generation resources in
the annual energy outlook 2018. Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/
aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf.
FAO. (1996). The state of food and agriculture 1996. FAO Agriculture Series, 29
(Rep.). http://www.fao.org/3/w1358e/w1358e.pdf.
FAO 2009, Global agriculture towards 2050, how to feed the world 2050,
food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome [Online],
Available: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/
HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.pdf, last accessed 15/3/2015.
Fuss, S., Havlík, P., Szolgayová, J., Schmid, E., Reuter, W.H., Khabarov, N., …,
Kraxner, F., 2015. Global food security & adaptation under crop yield volatility.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 98, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.
2015.03.019.
Gao, J., You, F., 2019. A stochastic game theoretic framework for decentralized opti-
mization of multi-stakeholder supply chains under uncertainty. Comput. Chem.
Eng. 122, 31–46. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2018.05.016.
García-Flores, R., de Souza Filho, O.V., Martins, R.S., Martins, C.V.B., Juliano, P.,
2015. Using Logistic Models to Optimise the Food Supply Chain. In:
Modeling Food Processing Operations, pp. 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978- 1- 78242- 284- 6.0 0 011-8.
Garcia, D.J., You, F., 2015. Multiobjective optimisation of product and process net-
works: general modeling framework, efficient global optimisation algorithm,
and case studies on bioconversion. AIChE Journal 61 (2), 530–554. https://doi.
org/10.1002/aic.14666.
Garcia, D.J., You, F.Q., 2016. The water-energy-food nexus and process systems en-
gineering: a new focus. Comput. Chem. Eng. 91, 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compchemeng.2016.03.003.
Gellings, C., Parmenter, K., 2004. Energy efficiency in fertiliser production and use.
Encycloped. Life Support Syst. (EOLSS) 1–15. Retrieved from http://www.eolss.
net/ebooks/SampleChapters/C08/E3- 18- 04- 03.pdf .
GEO. (2015). Global Energy Observatory. Retrieved from http://
globalenergyobservatory.org/geoid/42859.
Gephart, J.A., Davis, K.F., Emery, K.A., Leach, A.M., Galloway, J.N., Pace, M.L., 2016.
The environmental cost of subsistence: optimizing diets to minimise foot-
prints. Sci. Total Environ. 553, 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.
02.050.
Goldberg, D.E., 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimisation, and Machine
Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Govindan, R., Al-Ansari, T., Korre, A., Shah, N., 2018. Assessment of Technology Port-
folios with Enhanced Economic and Environmental Performance for the En-
ergy, Water and Food Nexus. In: Proceedings of the 28th European Symposium
on Computer Aided Process Engineering June 10th to 13th, 2018. Graz, Austria
2018. Accepted for poster presentation.
Hasuike, T., Kashima, T., Matsumoto, S., 2014. Data-driven food supply chain opti-
misation under uncertain crop productions and consumers demands. Innovat.
Supply Chain Manag. 8 (4), 150–156. doi:10.14327/iscm.8.150.
Hoff, H., 2011. Understanding the Nexus. Background Paper for the Bonn2011 Con-
ference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus. Stockholm Environment
Institute.
17
Hussien, W.A., Memon, F.A., Savic, D.A., 2018. A risk-based assessment of the house-
hold water-energy-food nexus under the impact of seasonal variability. J. Clean.
Prod. 171, 1275–1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.094.
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups
I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC,
Geneva, Switzerland, 151.
Investopedia. (2018, January 29). Payback period. Retrieved from https://www.
investopedia.com/terms/p/paybackperiod.asp
Irani, Z., Sharif, A.M., Lee, H., Aktas, E., Topaloğlu, Z., van’t Wout, T., SaHuda, S., 2017.
Managing food security through food waste and loss: small data to big data.
Comput. Oper. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2017.10.007.
Jasim, S.Y., Saththasivam, J., Loganathan, K., Ogunbiyi, O.O., Sarp, S., 2016. Reuse of
treated sewage effluent (TSE) in Qatar. J. Water Process Eng. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jwpe.2016.05.003.
Jha, A., Tripathy, P.P., 2018. Optimisation of process parameters and modeling of
mass transport during hybrid solat dry of paddy. Fifth International Conference
on Chemical Engineering (ICChE 2017) Process Modelling, Safety and Control, 5,
pp. 492–502. http://icche-buet.com/index.php/icche/icche2017/paper/view/112.
Jurasz, J., Ciapała, B., 2018. Solar–hydro hybrid power station as a way to smooth
power output and increase water retention. Solar Energy 173, 675–690. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.07.087.
Kahramaa. (2017). Tariff Calculator. Qatar General Electricity and Water Corporation.
https://www.km.com.qa/CustomerService/Pages/Tariff.aspx.
Kang, S., Hao, X., Du, T., Tong, L., Su, X., Lu, H., …, Ding, R., 2017. Improving agri-
cultural water productivity to ensure food security in China under changing
environment: from research to practice. Agr. Water Manag. 179, 5–17. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.05.007.
Kim, H., Jeong, H., Jeon, J., Bae, S., 2016. Effects of irrigation with saline water on
crop growth and yield in greenhouse cultivation. Water (Switzerland) 8 (4).
https://doi.org/10.3390/w8040127.
Kravanja, Z., Čuček, L., 2013. Multi-objective optimisation for generating sustainable
solutions considering total effects on the environment. Appl. Energy 101, 67–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.04.025.
Larkin, Alice, Kuriakose, Jaise, Sharmina, Maria, Anderson, Kevin, 2018. What if neg-
ative emission technologies fail at Scale? Implications of the Paris agreement
for big emitting Nations. Climate Policy 18 (6), 690–714.
MDPS. (2015). Water statistics in the state of Qatar. Retrieved from https:
//www.mdps.gov.qa/en/statistics/Statistical%20Releases/Environmental/Water/
2015/Water- Statistics- 2015- En.pdf
MDPS. (2016). Agricultural statistics. Retrieved from https://www.mdps.
gov.qa/en/statistics/Statistical%20Releases/Economic/Agriculture/2016/
1_Agricuitural_2016_AE.pdf
MME. (2016). Production and value of crops. Ministry of municipality and environ-
ment of Qatar (Rep.).
Mogale, D.G., Kumar, M., Kumar, S.K., Tiwari, M.K., 2018. Grain silo location-
allocation problem with dwell time for optimisation of food grain supply chain
network. Transp. Res. Part E 111, 40–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.01.004.
Moragues-Faus, A., Sonnino, R., Marsden, T., 2017. Exploring European food system
vulnerabilities: towards integrated food security governance. Environ. Sci. Policy
75, 184–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.015.
Mortada, S., Abou Najm, M., Yassine, A., El Fadel, M., Alamiddine, I., 2018. Towards
sustainable water-food nexus: an optimisation approach. J. Clean. Prod. 178,
408–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.020.
Namany, S., Al-Ansari, T., Govindan, R., 2018. Integrated techno-economic optimi-
sation for the design and operations of energy, water and food nexus systems
constrained as non-cooperative games. In: Computer Aided Chemical Engineer-
ing, 44, pp. 1003–1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978- 0- 444- 64241- 7.50162- 2.
Namany, S., Al-Ansari, T., Govindan, R., 2019. Sustainable energy, water and food
nexus systems: a focused review of decision-making tools for efficient resource
management and governance. J. Clean. Prod. 225, 610–626. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
2019.03.304.
QNFSP, 2013. The National Food Security Plan. Qatar National Food Security Pro-
gramme, Qatar.
Rajakal, J.P., Ng, D.K., Tan, R.R., Andiappan, V., Wan, Y.K., 2019. A mathematical opti-
misation model for analysis of minimal cropland expansion in agro value chains.
Sustain. Prod. Consum. 20, 178–191. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2019.06.004.
Rothausen, S.G.S.A., Conway, D., 2011. Greenhouse-gas emissions from energy use in
the water sector. Nat. Clim. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1147.
Robinson. (2002). Construction and operating costs of groundwater pumps for ir-
rigation in the riverine plain (Rep.). Retrieved from: http://www.clw.csiro.au/
publications/technical2002/tr20-02.pdf
Sá, J.C., de, M., Lal, R., Cerri, C.C., Lorenz, K., Hungria, M., de Faccio Carvalho, P.C.,
2017. Low-carbon agriculture in South America to mitigate global climate
change and advance food security. Environ. Int. 98, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envint.2016.10.020.
Sahinidis, N.V., 2004. Optimisation under uncertainty: state-of-the-art and oppor-
tunities. In: Computers and Chemical Engineering, 28, pp. 971–983. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2003.09.017.
Sanfilippo, A.P., Pederson, L.R., 2016. Impacts of PV adoption in Qatar on natu-
ral gas exports to Northeast Asia and ensuing environmental benefits. In: En-
ergy Relations and Policy Making in Asia, pp. 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978- 981- 10- 1094- 1_8.
Secondary Water Use Inquiry – Cost Analysis. (2012). Independent competition and
regulatory commission. Retrieved from http://www.icrc.act.gov.au/wpcontent/
uploads/2013/02/SECGSWUInquiryCostAnalysisFINALDRAFT.pdf
18 S. Namany, T. Al-Ansari and R. Govindan / Computers and Chemical Engineering 129 (2019) 106513
Sedarous, S., El-Gokhy, S.M., Sallam, E., 2017. Multi-swarm multi-objective optimi-
sation based on a hybrid strategy. Alex. Eng. J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2017.
06.017.
Stackelberg, H.V., 2014. Market Structure and Equilibrium. Springer Place of publi-
cation not identified:.
Trading Economics. (n.d.). Qatar Interest Rate 2004-2018 Data Chart Calendar
Forecast News. Retrieved from https://tradingeconomics.com/qatar/interest-rate
Generation Sources. World Nuclear Association. Retrieved from http://www.
world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/WorkingGroupReports/
comparisonofFirstNamelifecycle.pdf.
Wang, J., Rothausen, S.G.S.A., Conway, D., Zhang, L., Xiong, W., Holman, I.P., Li, Y.,
2012. Chinas waterenergy nexus: greenhouse-gas emissions from groundwa-
ter use for agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett.s, Qatar 1. https://doi.org/10.1088/
1748-9326/7/1/014035.
Wang, X., Dam, K.H., Triantafyllidis, C., Koppelaar, R.H., Shah, N., 2019. Energy-water
nexus design and operation towards the sustainable development goals. Com-
put. Chem. Eng. 124, 162–171. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2019.02.007.
WNA. (2011). Comparison of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of various
electricity. World Nuclear Association (Rep.). http://www.worldnuclear.org/
uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_
lifecycle.pdf4.
Woldesellasse, H., Govindan, R., Al-Ansari, T., 2018. Role of analytics within the en-
ergy, water and food nexus – An Alfalfa case study. In: Qatar, 44, pp. 997–1002.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978- 0- 444- 64241- 7.50161- 0.
Zhang, J., Campana, P.E., Yao, T., Zhang, Y., Lundblad, A., Melton, F., Yan, J., 2017. The
water-food-energy nexus optimisation approach to combat agricultural drought:
A case study in the United States. Appl. Energy 227, 449–464. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.036.